Cheating on someone you're in a dating relationship with?

[Draka]

Then they should have.

Exactly. If ever there was any reason to divorce...it's abuse. :yes:

 

[-Peacemaker-]

And what standard does your supposed God use? You aren't even allowed to question it because no matter what it's right. What kind of morality is that? To be stuck forever with misogynistic, homophobic, racist morals doesn't sound too appealing to me.

Secular morality is based on empathy and what is best for society. It evolves as people and culture evolves along with standards. It isn't perfect but nothing really is, and it's still better than sticking to the morality of a bunch of ancient desert shepherds and calling them revelations from God.

I agree that loving your neighbor as yourself is so antiquated

 

[Father Heathen]

I agree that loving your neighbor as yourself is so antiquated

The "golden rule" was hardly original or exclusive to the aforementioned goat herders, nor did they actually live by it, as evidenced by their tendency towards war, slavery, beatings, subjugation, rape, torture and stonings.

 

[bigNavySeal]

Wow, he sucks then. If I lived by that rule I'd either be dead right now or still suffering all forms of cruel abuse from my first husband. Oh wait, he did eventually cheat on me so I guess I'd be lucky enough to have an out on that one. My second husband, however, didn't cheat, he was just extremely jealous and controlling and emotionally and verbally abusive. But I guess that's okay right? Because there was no infidelity. I should still be married to him and being treated like crap and made to cry on a daily basis. I shouldn't be with the man I'm with now. I shouldn't have a wonderful family and two adorable kids. I shouldn't have any of that because I should still be married to an *******.

Sounded like quite some intense, difficult and saddening relationships, Draka. I'm glad to read you have gotten out of them, moved on and have found yourself a happy family! To add to the topic; that's what any sane person would do. It's quite obvious however that Junglej25 isn't approaching the subject very tactful and makes quite a blunt initial statement and merely sticks to traditional and outdated forms of morals and ethics. I too consider natural good moral instinct to be more superior than religious/holy moral designations, however bad instinct/emotions unfortunately do surround us...

 

[no-body]

I agree that loving your neighbor as yourself is so antiquated

Yes loving your neighbor as yourself as long as they aren't a woman, gay or a minority. You pretty much ignored my point too which is I don't need God to know that it is wrong to mistreat others because I have empathy. Secular morality has the advantage of being able to evolve. God's morality is forever stuck in "because I said so" mode.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Yes loving your neighbor as yourself as long as they aren't a woman, gay or a minority. You pretty much ignored my point too which is I don't need God to know that it is wrong to mistreat others because I have empathy. Secular morality has the advantage of being able to evolve. God's morality is forever stuck in "because I said so" mode.

It's funny how "empathy and reason" have a way of interpreting right and wrong to fit our desires. With "reason" we constantly create clever arguments to justify what we want to do. "Hey lets screw everything with a pulse" people now say. But wait that creates other problems like unwanted pregancies. No worries, with infallible human reason we can determine that cutting up the image of God in the form of babies in the womb (abortion) is ok because the baby couldn't live outside the womb on it's own. And as far as sex goes, anyone who's actually done it knows that it's something you do with your whole body not just one part of it and that even includes the emotional aspect. It's also why people who've been violated feel like every part of them has been violated not just their sex organs. If you're brave enough to keep an open mind you can find countless studies which show that couples that cohabitate before marriage are far more likely to end in divorce than couple that don't. I've even seen studies that show suicide rates are higher for sexually active kids than for ones that practice abstinence. As far as love goes, the general rule in the world is to love your friends and hate your enemies unless they actually come to you asking for forgiveness. Nevermind the fact that society would be a better place if we loved even the worst scumbags who didn't feel remorse, that's too hard. And we justify that position by saying we're not obligated to give people what they don't deserve. Can you imagine what the world we be like if we only received what we deserved? It'd be terrible.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Yes loving your neighbor as yourself as long as they aren't a woman, gay or a minority. You pretty much ignored my point too which is I don't need God to know that it is wrong to mistreat others because I have empathy. Secular morality has the advantage of being able to evolve. God's morality is forever stuck in "because I said so" mode.

Please show me the words of Jesus that supports this statement? I'll give you a hint, you'll be looking a very long time for them.

 

[Draka]

As far as the whole thing about going before the judge verses pledging before God, I'm giving it some thought so give me a minute on it.

Pretty long minute. Still waiting. Just what constitutes a "marriage" to you?

Are an atheist couple "married" at all regardless of where they get married or who marries them? Is a Christian couple "married" if they just went to a JP in a courthouse? Is any couple truly "married" who got hitched in a theme chapel in Las Vegas? If a couple is not in love but had an arranged married or otherwise forced marriage in front of a clergy and in a church, are they truly "married" if they aren't in love? What about states which have common-law marriage? where if a couple are together and have a family and hold each other to be their spouse/partner they are automatically considered "married" in the eyes of the state. Are those real "marriages"? Does love matter? Does who performs the marriage and where matter? Does the religion or lack thereof matter? Just what does constitute a "marriage" to you?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In days gone by, like in the 50's and 60's, Dating was not an exclusive thing.
I often found myself Dating a number of girls at the same time, and some of them were also going out with other men. There was no suggestion that this was unusual or wrong.
Once you were "Engaged", even unofficially, things changed.
Up to then "playing the field was the norm.

It seems even pre-teens date exclusively today.

 

[no-body]

It's funny how "empathy and reason" have a way of interpreting right and wrong to fit our desires. With "reason" we constantly create clever arguments to justify what we want to do. "Hey lets screw everything with a pulse" people now say. But wait that creates other problems like unwanted pregancies. No worries, with infallible human reason we can determine that cutting up the image of God in the form of babies in the womb (abortion) is ok because the baby couldn't live outside the womb on it's own. And as far as sex goes, anyone who's actually done it knows that it's something you do with your whole body not just one part of it and that even includes the emotional aspect. It's also why people who've been violated feel like every part of them has been violated not just their sex organs. If you're brave enough to keep an open mind you can find countless studies which show that couples that cohabitate before marriage are far more likely to end in divorce than couple that don't. I've even seen studies that show suicide rates are higher for sexually active kids than for ones that practice abstinence. As far as love goes, the general rule in the world is to love your friends and hate your enemies unless they actually come to you asking for forgiveness. Nevermind the fact that society would be a better place if we loved even the worst scumbags who didn't feel remorse, that's too hard. And we justify that position by saying we're not obligated to give people what they don't deserve. Can you imagine what the world we be like if we only received what we deserved? It'd be terrible.

Yeah, OK. Show me those hard studies that show people who live God's word are better off than those that don't. You just want to shove your view of the world down everyone else's throat to validate yourself. The secular view is ever changing and tries to be fair to everyone and while it might not always succeed, that is why it is admirable. More difficult than black/white this is right, this is wrong, there is no grey ever and everything is always the same.

Please show me the words of Jesus that supports this statement? I'll give you a hint, you'll be looking a very long time for them.

Not in so many words, but that is the form of Christianity most fundies adhere to. If Christians really followed the spirit of Jesus teachings they would fall very much in line with secular morality anyway and wouldn't complain. Look at the story of the adulterous woman; a wonderful parable of tolerance. But ask a fundie Christian about it and you'll get a nice twisted disgusting version of it where you still get to judge people.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The phrase "Till death do us part" was never in the wedding vows of my wife and I. We used the phrase "Death will not part, only lack of love and respect." Till death do us part is a stupid, unrealistic promise.

Not at all... that is what my late wife and I promised and what we kept to.

 

[Splarnst]

It's not about sex. It's about honesty and keeping your promises. If you didn't promise to be monogamous with your partner, then I see no inherent problem with having sex with other people. (There might be other issues regarding consent, honesty with that person, medical safety, etc.)

 

[bigNavySeal]

Your moral standards can only go beyond the normal standards, when you seek what is beyond them, some seek a close relationship with God, some seek spirituality, and spirituality has a dark and a light side. When the light side of spirituality isn't being sought, you are just about quite free to brand morality on anything that you do, since it is self-justified by how good you feel towards it, no matter how devious it may be to someone else.

e.g A serial killer might immensely enjoy the experience of murdering people, it is justified to him because thats what he really wants to do as it may give him some sense of power, self worth, pleasure. His spiritual high is met when he is quite in touch with his dark side. Is he wrong in his right to please himself?

What about normal people, who don't get to go kill/do crime to satisfy their souls? Perhaps then comes the cheating, lying ,deceiving and living it out, because for them, that is where their dark side of the soul is being re-juvenated. Obviously, nobody would cheat knowing or acknowledging that 'cheating in dating causes hurt', they do it for the thrill of it; the thrill which leads to nothing but shallowness, but they'd do it as long as it works for them; their arrogant self serving selves which cannot see beyond their own shallow moral standards.

Starsoul raises some interesting points and makes a fair example of how taking self-justified morality stance can go wrong. No-one responded. Anyone? It is slightly drifting away from the initial thread topic, however key essense is there.

As to my response though that a serial killer, who's background and previous experiences, perhaps mental dysfunction, might have influenced him negatively to perform such atrocious acts, yet might immensely enjoy these acts of killing his victims, I doubt morally "right" standards, no matter written or ingrained in our unwritten value system, will make him amend his way or mindset? He may be immensely enjoying it and get a "dark" spiritual high off it and feels it justified, although we would competely oppose this justification. We could all agree on that.

However, example, when you come to the topic of War, when soldiers are forced to kill their enemies of war, if not due to the relatively shallow brainwash of justifications of your or their reason for war, suddenly the line becomes more blurred. Hitler, yes he deserves through his initial intentions punishment for his actions, which would've undoubtely happened if he was captured instead of commited suicide, or perhaps the afterlife (e.g. hell). However what about all his initial followers, his millions of soldiers, comrads, the people he made believe, are they all wrong? no. Are they all right/good? no. Some most likey aren't, such as high ranking officers, aware of the plot, and would've been trialled in later stages, however many aren't, however wouldn't any of them who have fought and killed in this war would have a some argument for justification? None of us would really argue that, would God?

Now I'm not saying that we can all suddenly justify a serial killers' actions, however what I think it comes down to, is that particular essences of moral sense of right and wrong is pretty much ingrained in our natural value system, while certain written holy morality laws known to our society are not necessarily the ones that make most sense, as several others have pointed out already in this thread.

 

[Draka]

Your moral standards can only go beyond the normal standards, when you seek what is beyond them, some seek a close relationship with God, some seek spirituality, and spirituality has a dark and a light side. When the light side of spirituality isn't being sought, you are just about quite free to brand morality on anything that you do, since it is self-justified by how good you feel towards it, no matter how devious it may be to someone else.

e.g A serial killer might immensely enjoy the experience of murdering people, it is justified to him because thats what he really wants to do as it may give him some sense of power, self worth, pleasure. His spiritual high is met when he is quite in touch with his dark side. Is he wrong in his right to please himself?

What about normal people, who don't get to go kill/do crime to satisfy their souls? Perhaps then comes the cheating, lying ,deceiving and living it out, because for them, that is where their dark side of the soul is being re-juvenated. Obviously, nobody would cheat knowing or acknowledging that 'cheating in dating causes hurt', they do it for the thrill of it; the thrill which leads to nothing but shallowness, but they'd do it as long as it works for them; their arrogant self serving selves which cannot see beyond their own shallow moral standards.

For one, believing in a deity does not keep someone from being self-serving or automatically give them morals. If it did then the vast majority of prisons wouldn't be filled with Christians and the vast majority of terrorists wouldn't be Muslims. They'd all be atheists wouldn't they?

Immorality is not dependent on not having a spiritual "goodness" or belief in some deity, just as morality isn't contingent on religious belief. These are things which vary in people, regardless of their belief stance. These are things which have more to do with the mental capabilities and reasoning abilities of particular people, not whether or not they have religion.

Morality itself is not based on how good you feel about something, but more on how you would want to be treated. Those who can think and reason and empathize normally can pretty easily figure out that if they would not want something done to them then it is probably not a good thing to do to someone else. Morals, for the most part, are simply based on the concept that harm is not desired. Since most people do not desire to be harmed in any way, then it is reasonable to then deduce that others do not wish to be harmed as well. This is a very basic concept which requires no religion to state nor backup.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Pretty long minute. Still waiting. Just what constitutes a "marriage" to you?

Are an atheist couple "married" at all regardless of where they get married or who marries them? Is a Christian couple "married" if they just went to a JP in a courthouse? Is any couple truly "married" who got hitched in a theme chapel in Las Vegas? If a couple is not in love but had an arranged married or otherwise forced marriage in front of a clergy and in a church, are they truly "married" if they aren't in love? What about states which have common-law marriage? where if a couple are together and have a family and hold each other to be their spouse/partner they are automatically considered "married" in the eyes of the state. Are those real "marriages"? Does love matter? Does who performs the marriage and where matter? Does the religion or lack thereof matter? Just what does constitute a "marriage" to you?

Sorry for the wait. I'm not attempting to speak for God, Christianity, or Christians in general when answering your question. I think one of the key components of a marriage is the couple making vows to love each other until death. I think anything less than that is just a fancy form of dating. I think a couple could do that without being before a judge or priest. I don't think a marriage needs to be "legal" in order to be a real marriage. I think theoritcally, a couple could exchange vows in the woods where no one was watching and it would constitue a marriage. I believe if God is real that he expects you to keep that promise whether you believe he exists or not.

 

[Draka]

Sorry for the wait. I'm not attempting to speak for God, Christianity, or Christians in general when answering your question. I think one of the key components of a marriage is the couple making vows to love each other until death. I think anything less than that is just a fancy form of dating. I think a couple could do that without being before a judge or priest. I don't think a marriage needs to be "legal" in order to be a real marriage. I think theoritcally, a couple could exchange vows in the woods where no one was watching and it would constitue a marriage. I believe if God is real that he expects you to keep that promise whether you believe he exists or not.

And it must be "until death" in order for you to consider it a real marriage? Is it a real marriage if one spouse beats the other on a regular basis as long as they promised "until death"? Abusing your partner is not loving your partner. So doesn't abuse itself negate the vows of marriage?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Not in so many words, but that is the form of Christianity most fundies adhere to. If Christians really followed the spirit of Jesus teachings they would fall very much in line with secular morality anyway and wouldn't complain. Look at the story of the adulterous woman; a wonderful parable of tolerance. But ask a fundie Christian about it and you'll get a nice twisted disgusting version of it where you still get to judge people.

He still told her, a woman who was sleeping with five or six guys at the same time, to go and sin no more. He loved her but didn't say to her "I think it's time we change our moral standard so that it's in line whatever you want to believe is good and right or however you want to live. The concept of morals changing with the time only means one thing: that there is no such thing as absolute truth. It means we are making ourselves into gods and creating our own truths as we go.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

And it must be "until death" in order for you to consider it a real marriage? Is it a real marriage if one spouse beats the other on a regular basis as long as they promised "until death"? Abusing your partner is not loving your partner. So doesn't abuse itself negate the vows of marriage?

I understand that you were hurt very deeply. I think it's terrible what your first 2 husbands did to you. It's imperative to treat this part of the conversation very gently. You're now shifting the question from what I think constitutes a marriage to what I think is appropriate grounds for dissolving one. In this case I have to go back to the Christian God's command. But the question is why I believe in separation over divorce. It goes alot deeper than just "because God says so." I believe in it because I'm confident in the power of God to deliver people from any circumstance no matter how hopeless it may appear to be. If I didn't have that confidence I would have to say "screw it" and just divorce the person.

 

[Draka]

I understand that you were hurt very deeply. I think it's terrible what your first 2 husbands did to you. It's imperative to treat this part of the conversation very gently. You're now shifting the question from what I think constitutes a marriage to what I think is appropriate grounds for dissolving one. In this case I have to go back to the Christian God's command. But the question is why I believe in separation over divorce. It goes alot deeper than just "because God says so." I believe in it because I'm confident in the power of God to deliver people from any circumstance no matter how hopeless it may appear to be. If I didn't have that confidence I would have to say "screw it" and just divorce the person.

But wait, isn't the main reason for infidelity being grounds for divorce is because it breaks the vows of marriage? It invalidates the marriage and allows for ending it. How is abuse not breaking the very same vows?

Also, how can you be so confident that your god has this power? Because he obviously doesn't use it much if he does have it. How many women are beaten to death by their "loving" husbands? What of women who are killed just trying to get away from their abusive spouses? Where is your god then? Why does he care more about having abuse victims stay with their abusers and lead miserable lives than he cares for their own lives and happiness and well-being? A loving god would encourage a woman to break free of her abuser. A loving god would want her to move on and be happy. Your god doesn't sound very loving at all. In fact, he sounds downright cruel and sadistic.

See, this is where there is a huge difference in morals. Good morals should be based on the idea of not causing harm. This includes not allowing harm to come to yourself. Your god granted "morals" care not about harm, only that archaic and misogynistic unreasonable rules be adhered to. If your god had any morals he would encourage divorce in harmful relationships.

Honestly think for one moment, which would you find worse? Being cheated on by your wife or being beaten and humiliated and dejected and disregarded and tormented and toyed with on a daily basis by her? Which scenario would more likely probably make you want to get as far away from her as possible? Cheating may have extenuating circumstances, it could be a one time understandable thing given certain situations that could possibly be forgiven. How forgiving do you think you would feel after years of daily torment at the hands of the one who promised to love you "until death" do you part? Honestly now. Think deeply about it and please don't automatically give me some religious rhetoric. Think for yourself, without religious interference.

 

[Tristesse]

Could somebody explain to me how someone who doesn't consider it a moral issue to have sex before marriage faces some huge moral dillema when he wants to "cheat" with someone he's not in the sacred dating relationship with? When did dating become bound by a sacred covenant as if it's a marriage?

Whether you're in a relationship or you're married, you've made a commitment to that person. Marriage is more of a legal commitment to someone. It has nothing to do with being sacred.